IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where case has been presented in court beyond limitation, applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which prevented him to approach court within limitation.
(2) When a litigant approaches court for condoning the delay without any sufficient cause or justification, it tantamounts to utter disregard to the legislature.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 10.07.2017 of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.66/2016, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/7967/2018, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, there is a delay of 158 days in filing the Revision Petition. However, according to the computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 313 days.

3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on IA/7967/2018, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a resident of Patna and it took considerable time to obtain all documents and the impugned order from the State Commission and contact the advocate at Delhi. Petitioner personally visited Delhi twice to sign and verify the Revision Petition, which also took time. Petitioner being very old and partially disabled, took time to visit Delhi for signing the necessary papers. It was further submitted that brother of the Petitioner died in August, 2017 and the Petitioner had to spend time with the family to perform his brother’s last rights. The Petitioner approached the Counsel at Delhi in October-November, 2017. Thereafter, the Counsel for the Petitioner suffered with dengue for almost four months and resumed work in April, 2018. The Revision Petition, therefore, could not be filed in time.

5. The impugned order was passed on 10.07.2017 and was dispatched to the petitioner on 18.08.2017. The petitioner has filed the death certificate of his brother, showing his date of death as 29.07.2017. The petitioner has stated that he had collected the papers from Patna and approached his counsel in Delhi in October- November, 2017. A copy of the medical prescription relating to the counsel for the petitioner shows that he was diagnosed ‘dengue’ on 05.10.2017. It has been stated that the counsel remained ill and took almost 4 months, in recovery. This revision has been filed on 25.09.2018. Thus there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay, caused from February, 2018 to 24.09.2018.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that party who has not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)” has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

7. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consider